Order : (ANAND SHARMA, J.) 1. Award dated 28.06.2000 passed by the Labour Court-I Jaipur in LCR No. 128/1993, whereby reference has been answered against the petitioner, has been put to challenge by the petitioner by way of filing the instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India . He has further prayed that respondents may be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with effect from 30.03.1989 with all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner has come out with a case that vide order dated 22.05.1986, he was appointed as Service Technician on Probation basis w.e.f. 05.05.1986 in respondent-company, where his services were confirmed on completion of Probation period. Thereafter, he was promoted on the post of Senior External Engineer in May 1988. The petitioner further stated that all of a sudden, on account of being scummed to the pressure of higher authority, he tendered his resignation on 29.03.1989. In the resignation letter dated 29.03.1989, the Assistant Manager was requested to accept the petitioner’s resignation from the service of the organisation w.e.f. 29.03.1989 due to his personal reasons and the Branch Manager was also requested to settle his account at the earliest. On the same day, the Branch Manager forwarded the resignation letter to the Competent Authority for formal acceptance and relieving the petitioner with a further request to waive the notice period. The petitioner has contended in the writ petition that immediately on the next date, he sent one letter dated 30.03.1989 to the Branch Manager requesting therein to treat his resignation as cancelled because he was compelled to submit his resignation under pressure. The aforesaid letter dated 30.03.1989 is stated to have been sent through UPC (Under Postal Certificate), the petitioner further submits that ignoring his letter dated 30.03.1989, vide letter dated 09.04.1989 the authorised signatory of respondent- company accepted his resignation w.e.f. 29.03.1989 by waiving the notice period on request made by the petitioner himself. Petitioner has also submitted that thereafter father of the petitioner-Shri Dharmendra Kumar Jain also requested the AGM (C&D) to respondent No. 2 that resignation dated 29.03.1989 was given in hot-haste by the petitioner whereas he was not willing to resign and wanted to serve the respondent-company, therefore, he may be reinstated in service and thereafter, his son would work with devotion in the company. 3. 3. When nothing was done, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute under the Provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the ID Act of 1947’) and vide notification dated 19.04.1993 the appropriate government sent the reference to the Labour Court Jaipur, for adjudication. As per the terms of the reference as to whether termination of the services of petitioner by the respondents w.e.f. 30.03.1989 was valid or not and, if not, the workman was entitled to what relief and monetary benefits. 4. It is stated by the petitioner in the memo of writ petition that in pursuance to the aforesaid reference, he submitted his Statement of claim for declaring his termination order dated 30.03.1990 as invalid and illegal with a further direction to the respondents-company to reinstate the petitioner back in service alongwith all consequantial benefit including monetary benefits. By filing reply to the statement of claim, the respondent-company opposed the relief. Thereafter, impugned award dated 28.06.2000 was passed by the Labour Court-I Jaipur, answering the reference against the petitioner, hence, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 5. On receiving notices of the instant writ petition, reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondent No. 1 and 2 stating therein that initially M/s. Saka Electronic Private Limited (Respondent No.1) was a company engaged in service in servicing and repairing of Onida T.V., which has been later on converted as M/s. Onida Saka Ltd. and is no more engaged in servicing of television therefore, it is out of question to employ the petitioner in changed circumstances. It was also submitted in reply to the writ petition that petitioner himself voluntarily submitted his resignation dated 29.03.1989 with immediate effect and in fact the resignation was accepted on the same day i.e. 29.03.1989, however, the acceptance was later on communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 09.04.1989 that his resignation was accepted w.e.f. 29.03.1989 by waiving of notice period. 6. It was also stated that at no point of time, the respondent- company had received letter dated 30.03.1989 allegedly issued by the petitioner for withdrawing his resignation. 6. It was also stated that at no point of time, the respondent- company had received letter dated 30.03.1989 allegedly issued by the petitioner for withdrawing his resignation. It was further submitted that had it been done by the petitioner, the reference of withdrawing the resignation would have come in the subsequent letter dated 26.06.1989 sent by the father of the petitioner, but there was no such reference of withdrawing the resignation by the petitioner and as such, a concocted story has been framed by the petitioner and in fact at no point of time, the resignation letter was withdrawn by the petitioner. Under these circumstances, after meticulous examination of complete record and the material available on record as well as law prevailing at the relevant time, learned Labour Court has rightly answered the reference against the petitioner by award dated 28.06.2000 and petitioner has utterly failed to point out any manifest illegality, infirmity or perversity in the award dated 28.06.2000 Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be rejected. 7. The petitioner in support of his submission has submitted the judgment of Madras High Court in the case of R. Jesudasan Vs. K. Selvaraj and Ors. as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Murari Sinha Vs. Project and Development India Ltd. & Anr. reported in AIR 2002 SC 1341 . 8. I have examined the record of the writ petition and also heard the counsel for both the sides. 9. The factual dispute appears to have been raised by the petitioner by stating that he himself had withdrawn his resignation dated 29.09.1989 by sending one withdrawal letter through UPC dated 30.03.1989. The contention of the petitioner that sending the letter through UPC creates a presumption in his favour that the letter dated 30.03.1989 was sent by the petitioner to the respondents. However, such presumption cannot be said to be irrebutable and conclusive. In reply to the statement of claim as well as before this Court, the respondent-company has emphatically denied this fact and has never accepted that such withdrawal letter dated 30.03.1989 was issued by the petitioner, nor was it ever received by the respondent-company. However, such presumption cannot be said to be irrebutable and conclusive. In reply to the statement of claim as well as before this Court, the respondent-company has emphatically denied this fact and has never accepted that such withdrawal letter dated 30.03.1989 was issued by the petitioner, nor was it ever received by the respondent-company. The Labour Court, being competent, examined the aforesaid factual dispute on the basis of evidence led by both the parties and in view of the evidence placed before the Labour Court as well as on the basis of fact that the subsequent letter written by father of the petitioner has got no reference with regard to the withdrawal of the resignation, a factual finding has been given by the Labour Court that withdrawal letter dated 30.03.1989 was not sent by the petitioner. Such finding of fact cannot be assailed by the petitioner under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, nor any factual dispute can be raised before this Court in a writ jurisdiction. 10. Since there is finding of fact that the resignation letter was never withdrawn, therefore, the respondent-company was well within its right to accept the same by waiving the notice period, which has been done in this case by the respondent-company by issuing letter dated 09.04.1989. 11. The judgment of R. Jesudasan (supra) as relied upon by the petitioner is on the question that condition of service alone would hold the field and the general concept of master and servant has no place, therefore, statutory rules, if any cannot be ignored. The petitioner while citing the aforesaid judgment has also stated that as per the contract prevailing between the parties, services could have been terminated only after giving notice of one month, which has not been given in the instant case. 12. Such judgment in the context cited by the petitioner is of no help/applicability. It is not a case of termination at the instance of employer and is rather a case of resignation by the petitioner himself, hence, the aforesaid judgment is not attracted on account of having altogether different facts and circumstances. So far as the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Murari Sinha (supra), the point decided was that the resignation can be withdrawn by the employee before the effective date of resigning mentioned in the resignation letter. So far as the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Murari Sinha (supra), the point decided was that the resignation can be withdrawn by the employee before the effective date of resigning mentioned in the resignation letter. Aforesaid settled position of law has not been disputed by either of the parties. However, in the instant case, the facts are altogether different. The petitioner has utterly failed to establish the fact at any point of time he had withdrawn his resignation, therefore, the aforesaid judgment is also of no applicability in the present case which has entirely different facts and circumstances. 13. The Labour Court has not faulted in passing award dated 28.06.2000. In view of the above findings and observations, I find no merit and substance in the writ petition filed by the petitioner and the same is hereby rejected. 14. Stay application, all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.